MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1967956883 · doi:10.1577/t06-190.1

Population Status of White Sturgeon in the Lower Columbia River within Canada

2007· article· en· W1967956883 on OpenAlexafffundabout
Robyn L. Irvine, Dana Schmidt, Larry R. Hildebrand

Bibliographic record

VenueTransactions of the American Fisheries Society · 2007
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicFish Ecology and Management Studies
Canadian institutionsGolder Associates (Canada)
FundersBC Hydro
KeywordsSturgeonMark and recaptureLake sturgeonEndangered speciesPopulationJuvenileConfidence intervalFisheryBiologyWhite (mutation)Abundance (ecology)DemographyAcipenserGeographyFish <Actinopterygii>EcologyStatisticsMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract The subpopulation of white sturgeon Acipenser transmontanus in the Canadian portion of the Columbia River between Hugh L. Keenleyside Dam and the U.S.‐Canada border has been identified as endangered, with nearly 30 consecutive years of consistent recruitment failure. The objectives of this study were to determine the status and population attributes of this subpopulation. We estimated survival rates and abundance using catch‐curve analysis and mark‐recapture models. An annual survival rate of 89% (95% confidence interval [CI], 88‐90%) was estimated for the subpopulation using catch‐curve analysis for the time period 1993‐2004. The survival rates estimated from the mark‐recapture data were obtained using model‐averaged parameter estimates from a multistrata Cormack‐Jolly‐Seber model. The annual survival rate from the mark‐recapture model was estimated at 97% (95% CI, 92‐99%) from 1993 to 2004. The mark‐recapture methods estimated abundance for 2004 to be 1,157 individuals (95% CI, 414‐1,900). The mark‐recapture data suggest that the white sturgeon have low migration rates, ranging from 3% to 5% among sections of the river. Despite high estimated survival, high uncertainty as to the future viability of the white sturgeon subpopulation in this portion of the river remains, as natural recruitment is poor. The fish continue to age, and size and age‐frequency data suggest that recruitment failure continues in this subpopulation with minimal presence of wild juvenile or subadult white sturgeon detected.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.029
Threshold uncertainty score0.058

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.006
GPT teacher head0.198
Teacher spread0.191 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations41
Published2007
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueTransactions of the American Fisheries SocietySame topicFish Ecology and Management StudiesFrench-language works237,207